Further Reading

As of Thursday morning local time, a San Francisco animal adoption agency will immediately halt its recent use of a controversial security robot.

The move comes after the San Francisco SPCA had been scrutinized for its deployment of a Knightscope K9 to mitigate vandalism and the presence of homeless people at its Mission District office. Knightscope, a Silicon Valley startup, declares on its website that its robots are the "security team of the future."

Dr. Jennifer Scarlett, president of San Francisco's SPCA, said the following in a statement sent to Ars on Thursday morning:

Although we had already limited the use of the robot to our parking lot, we think a more fully informed, consensus-oriented, local approach on the appropriate use of these new devices will benefit everyone—whether it's on public space or in private parking lots... We welcome guidance from the city on policies for the use of autonomous security robots. Since this story has gone viral, we've received hundreds of messages inciting violence and vandalism against our facility and encouraging people to take retribution. In addition, we've already experienced two acts of vandalism on our campus.

An entrenched problem

The SF SPCA's main facility sits at 201 Alabama Street, in a section of the city that has been undergoing rapid gentrification for well over a decade. What was once a largely working-class Latino neighborhood has now given way to the heart of hipster San Francisco—a new Alamo Drafthouse opened just last year. Rents have skyrocketed. Homeless people routinely congregate near the Mission’s two BART stations.

In this particular section of the Mission, however, there are not only individuals but pitched tents and other makeshift shelters on public sidewalks very near the SPCA office.

When Ars turned up at the SPCA's office unannounced on Tuesday afternoon, we saw no Knightscope K9 rolling robot anywhere near the main entrance. We also saw no evidence of any homeless people or encampments in the immediate vicinity of Alabama Street.

Knightscope rents the robots to companies ranging from Microsoft to the Sacramento Kings. The company touts them as a supplement or replacement to human security guards—they only cost $6 per hour. The egg-shaped droids provide constant video surveillance and an imposing, moveable physical presence.

Earlier this year, Ars reported on an incident in which a Knightscope robot was attacked.

The company did not respond to Ars' request for comment.

Vandals!

Further Reading

When Ars asked the SF SPCA about the robot on Tuesday afternoon, spokeswoman Krista Maloney explained that her organization had recently experienced "a great deal of car break-ins, theft, and vandalism."

In an email, she explained why the robot was needed:

Over the summer, our shelter was broken into twice... The inside was vandalized, and property and cash donations were stolen. This was a major safety concern, particularly for our overnight veterinary staff. Furthermore, many staff members and volunteers have filed complaints about damage to cars and harassment they experienced in our parking lot when leaving work after dark. We currently employ security guards, but we have a large campus, and they can only be in one area at a time.

Enlarge/ This is the SF SPCA main entrance, as seen on Tuesday afternoon.

Cyrus Farivar

Maloney also said that, due to the robot, the agency had "seen a significant decrease" in petty crime and vandalism, calling it "very effective."

Maloney also said that the robot "predicts and prevents crime," and she noted that it recorded video around the clock, "and evidence of vandalism or other crime is sent to the San Francisco Police Department."

Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington who studies robotics, said that there is no clear evidence that Knightscope's robots can, in fact, predict or prevent crime. He also said that the $6 per hour fee is "arbitrary" and suggested that Knightscope may be setting it artificially low.

"They're the only game in town," Calo said. "Of course, they have every incentive at the early stages to set [Knightscope's price] low enough that makes it look like they're cheaper than security guards. There [are] often human beings that are in the background."

But beyond the economics, he was concerned that the SF SPCA had even taken this step for just a short month.

"How do we come to a place in society where we are herding people with robots instead of treating people with dignity and respect?" Calo said. "It's a small step from a situation where robots are keeping an eye on things and then they need to call for backup. There's a small distance between that and having them intervene."

Similarly, Linda Lye, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, told Ars that the use of such robots was a "troubling example of how invasive new surveillance technology is deployed in ways that disproportionately harm vulnerable communities."

Another law professor at Vanderbilt University, Christopher Slobogin, who has worked on "panvasive" surveillance technology, told Ars that these robots are perceived as being more intrusive than traditional CCTV cameras.

"It's just that the robots are more noticeable—more like humans—and thus are perceived as more intrusive than a camera on a pole," he emailed.

In the month that the robot was deployed, the SPCA's Maloney also said the robot's presence had not resulted in any arrests or prosecutions. But she again highlighted a "significant decrease in the amount of crime on our campus."

Maloney added that the reason why we did not see the robot when we visited earlier in the week was that it was only set up at the office's rear parking lot. She did not immediately respond to our further query as to whether the robot would be returned to the Mountain View startup.

"We piloted the robot program in an effort to improve the security around our campus and to create a safe atmosphere for staff, volunteers, clients, and animals," Dr. Scarlett wrote in the statement. "Clearly, it backfired."

"We sincerely hope our robot pilot program does not overshadow the incredible work our staff and volunteers do to serve animals and people—all people, regardless of their living circumstances. We are also hopeful that it has drawn attention to the challenges facing the homeless, a problem that needs all of our attention."

UPDATE 5:41pm ET: In an e-mail to Ars, Knightscope spokeswoman Donna Michaels provided this statement: "Contrary to sensationalized reports, Knightscope was not brought in to clear the area around the SF SPCA of homeless individuals. Knightscope was deployed, however, to serve and protect the SPCA. The SPCA has the right to protect its property, employees and visitors, and Knightscope is dedicated to helping them achieve this goal. The SPCA has reported fewer car break-ins and overall improved safety and quality of the surrounding area."

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

207 Reader Comments

If only all this outrage could be channeled to give these homeless people somewhere to go instead of being outraged that an organization is taking measures to keep its employees safe around its premises...except that would require more than internet slactivism.

I honestly don't see a problem with posting a guard (of either the meatbag or automated mobile camera variety) in a private parking lot that was experiencing vandalism. I'm assuming most of the complaints were related to using them out front on public sidewalks that fronted the building? That would be much more problematic.

I honestly don't see a problem with posting a guard (of either the meatbag or automated mobile camera variety) in a private parking lot that was experiencing vandalism. I'm assuming most of the complaints were related to using them out front on public sidewalks that fronted the building? That would be much more problematic.

Even then, if all it is doing is videotaping the goings on along the public easement over their property, I don't see any cause for concern. If they are physically encroaching on the property of others or on public property, it might be annoying, but even then - the robot (well, the SPCA staff via the robot) has as much right to record from public property as any person.

> "How do we come to a place in society where we are herding people with robots instead of treating people with dignity and respect?"

White knighting the "dignity" of car prowlers, thieves and muggers? OK then, the easily offended have reached a new low.

Yea, my thoughts exactly. The SPCA needed security because people were not treating their property, their employees property, and their customers with respect. I'm just amazed at how skewed our sense of right and wrong has gotten...

Edit: And I'm sure they tried the robot because it's much more costly to hire a real security guard 24/7 and it's much more difficult to fire them after the trial period.

I also don't really understand how all these professors/activists are getting into this. After multiple security and safety incidents, company tries to protect its' property and employees. This is wrong?

The article also kinda-sorta implies that homeless people are doing the vandalizing/assaulting/breaking/stealing, or at least conflates the homeless issue and the other issues. But blaming companies for protecting themselves is not really a useful thing for the company or the homeless.

Left SF in 2001, and one of the two big reasons was, after having my apartment building endlessly broken into and my car repeatedly vandalized (and stolen twice, that's fun) is that the city of SF will ALWAYS defend the "rights" of homeless people to destroy what they want, steal what they want, assault you, OD on the sidewalk, run up million-dollar ER tabs, shit on your doorstep every day...it got tiresome. Really tiresome. In general, I had a great time living there, but I wouldn't move back.

ETA: I visit almost every year. Everything there has gotten worse. 2017 will be the first year I have not gotten back and I've told my wife I have zero interest in ever going back for any reason at all. It's too depressing.

> "How do we come to a place in society where we are herding people with robots instead of treating people with dignity and respect?"

White knighting the "dignity" of car prowlers, thieves and muggers? OK then, the easily offended have reached a new low.

How about the "dignity" of homeless people looking for a peaceful sidewalk to sleep on, who still don't have a real place to sleep?

San Francisco is really, really messed up these days. There is no affordable housing in the city, and in some neighborhoods that happened practically overnight. You would think that a city with a long history of accommodating all income levels would have worked out a good way to provide affordable housing to those who can no longer afford rent, or the cost of relocating, but nope, it's roll in more stupid incubators and dot bombs. As much as I used to love the city, even the slightly smelly bits, I don't really want to visit anymore. Not the same place at all.

That said, setting up tents on the actual sidewalk is more than just finding a place to sleep - that's a protest, and I'll bet there's more going on in this neighborhood than fear of a bot planet.

> "How do we come to a place in society where we are herding people with robots instead of treating people with dignity and respect?"

White knighting the "dignity" of car prowlers, thieves and muggers? OK then, the easily offended have reached a new low.

Agreed, the poor are scum! Stick it to 'em!

Talk about a tired argument.

Where in the article does it say that the SPCA 'stuck it to' the homeless? Their property was being damaged. They rented a robot to secure their parking lot and deter ingrates from damaging their shit. It appears to have worked. No where in the article does it say the homeless were rounded up by the robots and systematically beaten. They were not pepper sprayed as far as I can tell. They weren't sprayed with fire hoses. Or at least I haven't seen any evidence to date, if I missed it some where let me know!

There's some irony that a place full of dogs is being protected by a robotic watchdog......

In America, even the four legged aren't immune to automation.

I would think the two organizations could combine resources to create Semi-Autonomous Guard Units.

He has an important job: Protect the yard.

Spoiler: show

Tonight, Semi-Autonomous Guard Unit #A-367 is barking. He is not just passingsome other doggie's bark to the pack. He is barking because he feels veryexcited about things that are happening in his yard.

First, two people came in. This made him excited because they came in veryfast. Their hearts are beating quickly and they are sweating and they smellscared. He looked at these two people to see if they were carrying bad things.The little one is carrying things that are a little naughty, but not really bad.The big one is carrying some pretty bad things. But he knows, somehow, that thebig one is okay. He belongs in this yard. He is not a stranger; he lives here.And the little one is his guest.

Still, he senses there is something exciting happening. He starts to bark. Thepeople in the yard don't hear him barking. But all the other nice doggies inthe pack, far away, hear him, and when they do, they see these two scared, nicepeople, smell them, and hear them.

Then more people come into his yard. They are also excited; he can hear theirhearts beating. Saliva floods his mouth as he smells the hot salty bloodpumping through their arteries. These people are excited and angry and just alittle bit scared. They don't live here; they are strangers. He doesn't likestrangers very much.

He looks at them and sees that they are carrying three revolvers, a .38 and two.357 magnums; that the .38 is loaded with hollow-points, one of the .357s isloaded with Teflon bullets and has also been cocked; and that the pump shotgunis loaded with buckshot and already has a shell chambered, plus four more shellsin its magazine.

The things that the strangers are carrying are bad. Scary things. He getsexcited. He gets angry. He gets a little bit scared, but he likes beingscared, to him it is the same thing as being excited. Really, he has only twoemotions: sleeping and adrenaline overdrive.

The bad stranger with the shotgun is raising his weapon!It is an utterly terrible thing. A lot of bad, excited strangers are invadinghis yard with evil things, come to hurt the nice visitors.

He barely has time to bark out a warning to the other nice doggies before helaunches himself from his doghouse, propelled on a white-hot jet of pure, feralemotion.

> "How do we come to a place in society where we are herding people with robots instead of treating people with dignity and respect?"

White knighting the "dignity" of car prowlers, thieves and muggers? OK then, the easily offended have reached a new low.

Agreed, the poor are scum! Stick it to 'em!

Talk about a tired argument.

Where in the article does it say that the SPCA 'stuck it to' the homeless? Their property was being damaged. They rented a robot to secure their parking lot and deter ingrates from damaging their shit. It appears to have worked. No where in the article does it say the homeless were rounded up by the robots and systematically beaten. They were not pepper sprayed as far as I can tell. They weren't sprayed with fire hoses. Or at least I haven't seen any evidence to date, if I missed it some where let me know!

Yes, because "not beating homeless people" is the high moral standard we all aspire to.

What does this have to do with the article again? I'm just trying to understand the outrage a the SPCA for trying to secure their shit...

I'm really having a hard time figuring out where the homeless fit into this. They rented the bot because of vandalism and specific thefts, damages, and unlawful entry after hours into their buildings. There is no mention of homeless individuals being considered.

The only people mentioning the homeless are independent third parties, who made some pretty serious (and seriously lacking evidence claims), and in some cases have (as the SPCA noted) incited violence and vandalism against the facility in reaction to the bot. Seems more like an invented problem than justifiable outrage.

> "How do we come to a place in society where we are herding people with robots instead of treating people with dignity and respect?"

White knighting the "dignity" of car prowlers, thieves and muggers? OK then, the easily offended have reached a new low.

How about the "dignity" of homeless people looking for a peaceful sidewalk to sleep on, who still don't have a real place to sleep?

If they're vandalizing cars and threatening workers, they need to be locked up, the same as non-homeless people who do those things.

That's a very nice straw man you got there, mister.

Try again, kid.

Quote:

Over the summer, our shelter was broken into twice... The inside was vandalized, and property and cash donations were stolen. This was a major safety concern, particularly for our overnight veterinary staff. Furthermore, many staff members and volunteers have filed complaints about damage to cars and harassment they experienced in our parking lot when leaving work after dark.

There's some irony that a place full of dogs is being protected by a robotic watchdog......

In America, even the four legged aren't immune to automation.

I would think the two organizations could combine resources to create Semi-Autonomous Guard Units.

He has an important job: Protect the yard.

Spoiler: show

Tonight, Semi-Autonomous Guard Unit #A-367 is barking. He is not just passingsome other doggie's bark to the pack. He is barking because he feels veryexcited about things that are happening in his yard.

First, two people came in. This made him excited because they came in veryfast. Their hearts are beating quickly and they are sweating and they smellscared. He looked at these two people to see if they were carrying bad things.The little one is carrying things that are a little naughty, but not really bad.The big one is carrying some pretty bad things. But he knows, somehow, that thebig one is okay. He belongs in this yard. He is not a stranger; he lives here.And the little one is his guest.

Still, he senses there is something exciting happening. He starts to bark. Thepeople in the yard don't hear him barking. But all the other nice doggies inthe pack, far away, hear him, and when they do, they see these two scared, nicepeople, smell them, and hear them.

Then more people come into his yard. They are also excited; he can hear theirhearts beating. Saliva floods his mouth as he smells the hot salty bloodpumping through their arteries. These people are excited and angry and just alittle bit scared. They don't live here; they are strangers. He doesn't likestrangers very much.

He looks at them and sees that they are carrying three revolvers, a .38 and two.357 magnums; that the .38 is loaded with hollow-points, one of the .357s isloaded with Teflon bullets and has also been cocked; and that the pump shotgunis loaded with buckshot and already has a shell chambered, plus four more shellsin its magazine.

The things that the strangers are carrying are bad. Scary things. He getsexcited. He gets angry. He gets a little bit scared, but he likes beingscared, to him it is the same thing as being excited. Really, he has only twoemotions: sleeping and adrenaline overdrive.

The bad stranger with the shotgun is raising his weapon!It is an utterly terrible thing. A lot of bad, excited strangers are invadinghis yard with evil things, come to hurt the nice visitors.

He barely has time to bark out a warning to the other nice doggies before helaunches himself from his doghouse, propelled on a white-hot jet of pure, feralemotion.